Mohammed Nazeer T P vs State Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 12755 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12755 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Mohammed Nazeer T P vs State Bank Of India on 8 December, 2023

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 33921 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         MOHAMMED NAZEER T P
         AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE MOIDUNNIKUTTY,
         THAIKANDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY PO,
         NEAR GROUND STOP THRISSUR, PIN - 680 557.

         BY ADVS.
              K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
              N.J.NETTO
              SANAL C.S
              JISSMON A KURIAKOSE
              DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA
         VARAVOOR BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
         HAVING OFFICE AT RACPC, 1ST FLOOR,
         STATE BANK BHAVAN KOVILAKATHUMPADAM,
         THIRUVAMBADY P.O, THRISSUR,
         PIN - 680 022.

    2    AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE AT RACPC,
         1ST FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAVAN KOVILAKATHUMPADAM,
         THIRUVAMBADY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 022.

         BY ADV
              JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.33921 of 2023
                                :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the State Bank of India to the

petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹14,72,000/- to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2015. The petitioner states that

though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the

initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not

pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The

repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to the stringent

financial difficulty faced by the petitioner. It happened due to

reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to

permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy

monthly instalments, the Bank authorities were not yielding.

The authorities, instead, started coercive proceedings,

invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and issued Exts.P1 and P2

notices.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to

clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient time

is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If the

respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive

proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the

petitioner, he will be put to untold hardship and loss.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf

of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the

petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that

the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately

omitted to do so. The loan account was declared as NPA. In

the circumstances, the Bank had no other go than to proceed

against the petitioner invoking, the provisions of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned

Exts.P1 and P2 were issued in these circumstances. The

petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the

coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

7. The Counsel, however, submitted that if the

petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment

soon and remit the balance outstanding amount immediately

thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the

petitioner to clear the dues. The Counsel submitted that the

outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as

on 08.12.2023 is ₹4,57,000/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Counsel representing the Bank.

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the

petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining

the loan account initially. The default in repayment of the

loan occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the

petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial security

which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and

reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of

₹1,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2023.


          (ii)     The petitioner shall remit the balance

          outstanding        amount      in   subsequent

consecutive four equal monthly instalments

thereafter, along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.